Three Recent TTAB Inter Partes Decisions: a Mixed Bag of Defeats for the Plaintiffs

Here for your consideration are three recent Board decisions. The plaintiff lost in each one: for lack of standing, failure to prove priority, and failure to prove lack of bona fide intent.

California Wheel Distributor Inc. v. Peregrine Automotive, LLC., Cancellation No. 92080626 (June 26, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Thomas W. Wellington) [The Board denied this petition for cancellation of a registration of the mark REVENGE AUTO PARTS for “on-line wholesale and retail store services featuring auto parts,” because the petitioner failed to prove its statutory standing. Petitioner alleged nonuse and abandonment and claimed that it had standing to bring the petition because its application to register the mark REVENGE was blocked by the challenged registration. However, it failed to submit a copy of the file history of its application and there was no other supporting evidence.]

Schiebel Industries AG v. Camera Copters, Inc., Cancellation No. 92071596 (June 25, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Lawrence T. Stanley, Jr.) [The Board denied this petition for cancellation of the mark CAMERA COPTERS, in word-and-design form, because Petitioner Schiebel failed to prove priority. Schiebel claimed prior common law rights in the mark CAMCOPTER and alleged use of the mark since 2009, but it failed to put its sales figures in competitive context, and its long use of the mark was by itself insufficient to establish acquired distinctiveness for its highly descriptive mark.]

Retrobrands USA LLC v. Data Access Sarl, Opposition No. 91283839 (June 24, 2025) [not precedential] (Opinion by Judge Wendy B. Cohen) [The Board dismissed this six-year-old opposition to registration of the mark HELENE CURTIS for cosmetics and hair care products because Opposer Retrobrands failed to prove its claim that the applicant lacked a bona fide intent to use the mark. The Board found that applicant had shown "both the capacity to market and/or manufacture perfumes and cosmetic-type products, having produced them in the past under different marks." Although applicant did not have a detailed business plan, the Board found that applicant's assertion that it "believes such [a detailed plan] is unnecessary in view of Applicant’s prior experience" was reasonable.]

Read comments and post your comment here.

TTABlogger comment: Retrobrands has lost several other TTAB cases in its attempts to revive "zombie" marks, including CHICLETS and KINNEY SHOES.

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2025.